Thread: Pay for My ____________

Originally Posted by AnnaK

Georgetown's policy didn't cover BC pills even for medical conditions - i.e. the woman with ovarian cysts. Even after getting documentation from her doctor, they still wouldn't cover it.

Then I suggest they take it up with their State, as this is a State issue.

There are women who have heart or kidney disease, diabetes, are taking chemotherapy and any number of reasons why becoming pregnant would be seriously harmful to them or a baby or even kill them. Most women in school do want them for birth control because if they're in school, they aren't ready to start a family. They want to finish school and become established in a job that can support themselves and a baby BEFORE they have one. Married couples still in school don't want children until they're out of school. BC allows a woman or a married couple to PLAN AHEAD and make sure they're ready to support a child before they have one and allows a woman to decide her own future.

If they are unable to use self-control or can not afford a box of condoms, then I do not know what to say. Birth Control is not that expensive.

While I do agree that birth control pills SHOULD be covered as with any prescription drug, the cost of such is not that detrimental that it is causing a national crisis.

If people are having unprotected sex just because BC is not covered by their insurance, then these people are not very bright. You claim that these people want to finish other important things in their lives prior to having children, but apparently they are willing to take the chance with their health and their future by having a night of unprotected sex.

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Oh, the irony! The only "willful ignorance" being displayed is yours, my dear. Individuals who VOLUNTARILY enter into a health insurance plan such as you have described are not at issue and never have been. What IS at issue here are the progressive ideologues who DEMAND that private individuals and institutions subsidize and provide such plans against their will. I know progressives have a difficult time distinguishing between voluntarily paying for something and being forced to pay for something by agents of the state, but you have to try your best to make the distinction, because there's an important and not-so-subtle difference between the two. Got it?

Well, I don't want to pay for Rush Limbaugh's boner pills so that he can go on sex tours to the Dominican Republic. I wonder if insurance documents would show that we also paid for his 2-3,000 Oxycontin pills per month while he was so drugged out of his mind that he caused permanent damage to his hearing which then had to be corrected by surgery which was probably also covered by health insurance.

No offense, but your posts are formatted very poorly. I'm not going to respond to you anymore unless you post like a normal person.

　
　
Are you against all tax payer injustices and/or misuse of the government in general, or only the one's directed at things you choose not to agree with? Seems pretty straight forward, direct and to the point?
　
　

If you have a medical need for birth control pills for heavy periods, acne, or the few other medical needs, you can get it prescribed and paid for by your insurance, your doctor has to write an order for it though. Do not try to act as if these women are being denied healthcare, they are being denied covered birth control.

　
　
They are being denied BC in any and all situations, because the employer or organization which provides a group insurance plan wishes to dictate from their perspective what is appropriate or not?
　
Why?
　
The care given to a patient should be determined between the doctor and the patient (insured or otherwise). The insurance company obviously will have limits that will be dictated, within reason, but the employer/organization itself, or the government for that matter shouldn't be determining anything. Except in cases of a legality, breach of contract, misuse of funds/embezzlement, acts of fraud, or other forms of criminal activities.

Originally Posted by Nunya D.

Then I suggest they take it up with their State, as this is a State issue.



If they are unable to use self-control or can not afford a box of condoms, then I do not know what to say. Birth Control is not that expensive.

While I do agree that birth control pills SHOULD be covered as with any prescription drug, the cost of such is not that detrimental that it is causing a national crisis.

If people are having unprotected sex just because BC is not covered by their insurance, then these people are not very bright. You claim that these people want to finish other important things in their lives prior to having children, but apparently they are willing to take the chance with their health and their future by having a night of unprotected sex.

It really seems reasonable to you to expect a married couple to go through 3 years of law school celibate if they can't afford BC and they can't afford to have a baby? And if they have perfectly normal human emotions and sex drives, they aren't very smart?

It also seems reasonable to you that an ins co should cover Viagra and other male enhancement drugs, penile implants and so on because a man not being able to have sex is a MEDICAL CONDITION and a man couldn't be expected to simply be celibate and not complain if he can't afford to pay for it out of pocket? But PREVENTING pregnancy - which could be hazardous to a woman's health - should NOT be covered? Because pregnancy - and possibly a dangerous pregnancy - is NOT a medical condition?

It's my understanding that insurance cos have readily agreed to provide this coverage because it will be very cost effective for them and save them lots of money in the long run.

Originally Posted by AnnaK

It really seems reasonable to you to expect a married couple to go through 3 years of law school celibate if they can't afford BC and they can't afford to have a baby? And if they have perfectly normal human emotions and sex drives, they aren't very smart?

It also seems reasonable to you that an ins co should cover Viagra and other male enhancement drugs, penile implants and so on because a man not being able to have sex is a MEDICAL CONDITION and a man couldn't be expected to simply be celibate and not complain if he can't afford to pay for it out of pocket? But PREVENTING pregnancy - which could be hazardous to a woman's health - should NOT be covered? Because pregnancy - and possibly a dangerous pregnancy - is NOT a medical condition?

It's my understanding that insurance cos have readily agreed to provide this coverage because it will be very cost effective for them and save them lots of money in the long run.

I guess you missed the "bold" portion:

Originally Posted by Nunya D.

Then I suggest they take it up with their State, as this is a State issue.

If they are unable to use self-control or can not afford a box of condoms, then I do not know what to say. Birth Control is not that expensive.

While I do agree that birth control pills SHOULD be covered as with any prescription drug, the cost of such is not that detrimental that it is causing a national crisis.

If people are having unprotected sex just because BC is not covered by their insurance, then these people are not very bright. You claim that these people want to finish other important things in their lives prior to having children, but apparently they are willing to take the chance with their health and their future by having a night of unprotected sex.

I would like to be in prime health condition....is the Government/Insurance going to pay for my Gym Membership? There are many benefits that could be had if the would.

Originally Posted by toddwv

What I hear when I read your posts:

Of course that's what you hear. Every time someone questions your statist dogma you simply stick your head in the sand. I've never seen you make a substantive post. It's all just lamebrain DNC talking points and soundbites.

Grow the (*)(*)(*)(*) up. This is the 21st century. I'd love to say it's a shock that conservatives think that this is a winning issue for them, but I've had too much interactions with the obscenely extreme of the right-wing party.

I'm well aware of what century it is, but I fail to see how it justifies forcing private individuals and institutions to subsidize and provide birth control for other private individuals.

And it's a sad commentary on your attention to detail when you mistake me as a "conservative". I'm far, far more liberal than any progressive whore who shills for the state and apologizes for corporate welfare like the bailouts.

Originally Posted by AnnaK

No, I don't get it. Which individuals and institutions are going to be required to subsidize and provide such plans against their will?

In the first place, Medicaid is used to subsidize all sorts of healthcare, birth control included, so every taxpaying American has been subsidizing it for some time.

Secondly, before Obama allegedly exempted religious institutions from the mandate, progressives were out in force justifying it as a "women's health" issue. Apparently, they were just lying, that, or they don't actually care about "women's health"...

The bottom line is this: Progressives make these kinds of arguments ALL THE TIME. Birth control is just another one of thousands of examples where progressives use the central government to FORCE peaceful individuals into arrangements and associations because of some nebulous "collective good"-based argument. The problem is that they abuse the absolute hell out of the "collective good" rationale and use it to mean "whatever the hell I want, when I want it, for free!".

Religious institutions won't be - they've been exempted. What individuals? Who will they provide them to?

And I do understand the difference between voluntarily paying for something and being forced to pay for something by the state. That's exactly the situation with the Republican ultrasound bill in Virginia that women will be forced to have and also forced to pay for it themselves. Why are you opposed to having insurance cos pay for BC but not to individuals being forced to pay out of pocket for a state mandated, unnecessary medical procedure before getting an abortion which might have been completely unnecessary if the woman had had access to BC?

Because I see abortion as a state issue.

Originally Posted by toddwv

Well, I don't want to pay for Rush Limbaugh's boner pills so that he can go on sex tours to the Dominican Republic. I wonder if insurance documents would show that we also paid for his 2-3,000 Oxycontin pills per month while he was so drugged out of his mind that he caused permanent damage to his hearing which then had to be corrected by surgery which was probably also covered by health insurance.

Is this supposed to upset me or something? Do you actually think I give a flying f*** about Rush Limbaugh and his drug habits? If Rush Limbaugh dropped dead THIS SECOND I wouldn't give it a second thought.

So, do you have anything relevant to add, or is obsessing over Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin the only thing you're interested in?

I want subsidized ass implants.

Originally Posted by Montoya

I want subsidized ass implants.

I think you already have more than your share.